Basically, as the subject line. The witchfire has a rider on its attacks called Witchflame, which (on a Fail or Crit Fail on the save) is "permanent until removed". So how would one remove it?
Witchflame has the Curse trait, so presumably a remove curse or sufficiently high-rank cleanse affliction would do the trick, but are there any other (more accessible) options?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
cleanse affliction is the way to go yeah. It doesn't even need to be high rank, since the counteract rules state:
"If an effect's level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature's level."
A witchfire is level 9, so the rank of Witchflame would be 4.5, rounded up to 5. You can clear that on a crit on a Rank 2-3 cleanse affliction, or a success on Rank 4 or higher. if you're facing Witchfires these shouldn't bee too hard to find, it would cost you 40 gp to just pay a cleric to do it in a big enough town.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As part of the remaster they merged Remove Curse, Neutralize poison and Remove Disease to create more generic removal that targets all three, so for all intents and purposes Remove Curse is fully replaced.
Another option would be the Break Curse Skill Feat as a means to do it without a resource cost, But 8 hours means its not really feasable unless you are already at the end of the day.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TheFinish wrote: cleanse affliction is the way to go yeah. It doesn't even need to be high rank, since the counteract rules state:
"If an effect's level is unclear and it came from a creature, halve and round up the creature's level."
A witchfire is level 9, so the rank of Witchflame would be 4.5, rounded up to 5. You can clear that on a crit on a Rank 2-3 cleanse affliction, or a success on Rank 4 or higher. if you're facing Witchfires these shouldn't bee too hard to find, it would cost you 40 gp to just pay a cleric to do it in a big enough town.
I'm not sure why you are describing this as "doesn't even need to be high rank".
Yes, the creature level 9 is going to have a counteract rank of 5, so a rank 4 casting of Cleanse Affliction and a success on the check would remove it.
A rank 2 or rank 3 casting of Cleanse Affliction wouldn't work because it doesn't remove curses until rank 4. A crit on the check wouldn't change that. And it is never a good idea to rely on rolling crits on demand.
If you are fighting this as a tough fight, that means that the party is level 8. So that rank 4 casting of Cleanse Affliction is a maximum rank spell slot. And it only has about a 50% chance of success. You may need to cast it two or three times if the dice don't like you that day.
Even if you are fighting this with it being a minion type, that means that the party is level 10 or 11. The rank 4 spell slot is now only a max-1 or max-2. But that is still pretty high rank for the character. The probability of success is better (guessing about 60% - 70%), but you may still have to cast it more than once. At level 11 you do have the option of casting Remove Affliction at rank 6, which would remove the curse even on a failed check. But then we are again using a maximum rank spell slot to get rid of this curse.
TheFinish wrote: cleanse affliction is the way to go yeah. It doesn't even need to be high rank It would, for the reasons Fionoan outlines.
NorrKnekten wrote: As part of the remaster they merged Remove Curse, Neutralize poison and Remove Disease to create more generic removal that targets all three, so for all intents and purposes Remove Curse is fully replaced. Only if you play a pure Remaster game, which I do not (apart from anything else, this campaign started before the Remaster was a thing).
NorrKnekten wrote: Another option would be the Break Curse Skill Feat as a means to do it without a resource cost, But 8 hours means its not really feasable unless you are already at the end of the day. (Added a link for future reference). The PCs could theoretically have that feat, but I am reasonably certain none of them do.
--------------
Thanks everyone! I just wanted to check whether I had missed anything, but it does not seem like I had missed much. I did not know about the feat, but if any of my PCs had it presumably they would have.
The party are level 7, so Rank 4 is indeed their highest-Rank slot. I am not sure if any of them know it anyway (the bard might), but Otari is only 20 minutes away.
glass wrote: The party are level 7, so Rank 4 is indeed their highest-Rank slot. I am not sure if any of them know it anyway (the bard might), but Otari is only 20 minutes away. But Otari is a 5th lvl town. Normally nobody has this kind of magic there (4th rank is 7+ level). No NPC can cast 4th rank spells and no shops are above 5th level. It's possible to order from Absalom, but it's several days.
I know you can change this, but it's the default.
And to think Otari is full of retired Pathfinders ...
The Raven Black wrote: And to think Otari is full of retired Pathfinders ... Reasonable. But who says retired Pathfinders should be higher than 5th level? Also it's so full of them that we now about exactly one, and in a completely different adventure :)
Errenor wrote: But Otari is a 5th lvl town. Normally nobody has this kind of magic there (4th rank is 7+ level). No NPC can cast 4th rank spells and no shops are above 5th level. It's possible to order from Absalom, but it's several days. You're correct - I forgot that the PCs now out-levelled the town.
Errenor wrote: The Raven Black wrote: And to think Otari is full of retired Pathfinders ... Reasonable. But who says retired Pathfinders should be higher than 5th level? Also it's so full of them that we now about exactly one, and in a completely different adventure :) Who's the one, and from which adventure?
----------------------
Circling back to the question of what Rank of cleanse affliction you need, when I read it yesterday afternoon I thought it was clear that you needed Rank 4 for the reasons outlined by Finnoan. But when I looked again during the session, it was not so clear cut. You need Rank 4 to Counteract a Curse, but not to reduce a Curse. So then the question becomes, can you reduce a Curse to stage zero. The text of the spell:
Cleanse Affliction, AoN wrote: Gentle restorative magic pushes back the effects of toxins and more complex maladies. Choose an affliction on the target, such as a curse, disease, or poison. If it has advanced past stage one, reduce the stage by one. This reduction can be applied only once to a given case of an affliction, with the case ending when it's completely cured. Although the reduction can't occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract with each casting. The question hangs on the part I have bolded. Were it not for that, it would be fairly clear that you can only reduce an Affliction which has already advanced past stage 1 (which Witchflame never does). But then the bolded part would be irrelevant and meaningless.
Thoughts?
You need to read the bolded text in the entire scentence which its present in.
The reduction can be applied only once to a given case of affliction, with the case ending when said affliction is completely cured.
As in. You cannot reduce the same instance of affliction twice but you can reduce an identical affliction on the same character as long as the character was cured of the previous case. Effectively they want temporary immunity but with less restrictions that such would bring and the bolded text tells you when this 'immunity' ends.
NorrKnekten wrote: You need to read the bolded text in the entire sentence which its present in. I did, but it still did not seem to add any meaning. Obviously, things end when they end - that is a tautology, and does not need to be stated. I am a firm believer that all rules text should do something, and be dismissed as meaningless only as a last resort.
In this case, you're probably right: The most straughtforward reason is that those words do nothing, and that it was probably the intent. But since the spell is (at that Rank) pretty terrible, I am going to stick with the more generous reading anyway (stretch or house rule though it may be).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
glass wrote: Errenor wrote: The Raven Black wrote: And to think Otari is full of retired Pathfinders ... Reasonable. But who says retired Pathfinders should be higher than 5th level? Also it's so full of them that we know about exactly one, and in a completely different adventure :) Who's the one, and from which adventure?
Khoumrock Blackthane
Bandits of Immenwood
Funny thing, he actually appeared in 3 other later adventures even though he is retired.
glass wrote: I did, but it still did not seem to add any meaning. Obviously, things end when they end - that is a tautology, and does not need to be stated. I am a firm believer that all rules text should do something, and be dismissed as meaningless only as a last resort. Well.. it doesn't say that the affliction ends when it ends when it ends. Rather it says when the affliction can be reduced again. This serves as a clarification to the reader on what a "case" is. For example if a victim gets exposed to a poison they are already suffering from its not a different case, same with diseases that restart or reoccur.
It really is not a terrible spell either as it is meant to replace the three aforementioned spells from pre-remaster which kinda were terrible due to long casting times. Which is why it can cure diseases and poisons but not curses at early ranks since Remove Curse was a 4th rank spell.
If your caster has it on easy access they can effectively remove any longterm affliction with ease. Provided its not 2 ranks higher than they can cast ofcourse.
The issue I see with letting it reduce afflictions to zero is that it lets one run rank 1 versions that are still capable of removing any affliction as long as you use it before it progresses.
NorrKnekten wrote: Well.. it doesn't say that the affliction ends when it ends when it ends. That's exactly what it says.
NorrKnekten wrote: Rather it says when the affliction can be reduced again. This serves as a clarification to the reader on what a "case" is. It only "needs" to clarify what a case is because the previous half of the sentence unnecessarily introduced the word (needs in scare quotes because, again, it is pretty obvious what case means in the context).
NorrKnekten wrote: For example if a victim gets exposed to a poison they are already suffering from its not a different case, same with diseases that restart or reoccur. I am a firm believer in a spelling things out, but even I have my limits and this is well past them. Are you really saying that if that sentence was not there, you'd keep track of every affliction this was cast against and only allow it once ever rather than once per instance? Because that is what would be required for the sentence under discussion to actually do anything.
NorrKnekten wrote: It really is not a terrible spell either At Rank 2? It's abject.
Any Affliction worth using a precious spell slot on is one where the subject is pretty likely to fail their saves. So in a lot of cases, it brings them down to one stage before final, and then they bounce back to final and suffer the effects again. Exactly as they would have done had they stayed where they were. Obviously, if the final stage is "you die" then that does not apply, but how many of those exist at level 3?
NorrKnekten wrote: The issue I see with letting it reduce afflictions to zero is that it lets one run rank 1 versions that are still capable of removing any affliction as long as you use it before it progresses. What? It's Spell 2; it doesn't have a Rank 1 version.
Being able to nip potentially nasty Afflictions in the bud before they get worse (and require more serious magic) is a feature not a bug IMNSHO.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Way I read it, Cleanse Affliction will always reduce a 2+ stage by 1, whatever the affliction.
This reduction can happen only once per case of affliction.
As in if you catch ghoul fever on day 1 and it progresses to stage 2, casting a first Cleanse Affliction will put it back to stage 1, even if it is not heightened. Further castings will not reduce it again but may counteract the affliction if sufficiently heightened.
If one week later, after having completely recovered from this case of ghoul fever, you get it again, then it is a different case of the same affliction and you can again cast Cleanse Affliction to reduce a 2+ stage by 1 with the attending rule that further castings will not reduce it again.
Even the rank 2 version might be enough to allow the PCs time to find a healer who can successfully end the affliction.
Definitely a scroll-worthy spell, though not a slot-worthy one.
I mean fair enough on all of that which glass pointed out, I to agree that it could've been worded better. If anything the spell at second rank is Restoration with similar meaning but changed words. But someone still put the text there and chestertons fence is a rather well known concept.
And yes I was wrong about its rank, that still doesn't change it being an issue down the line when a rank 2 spell removes effects from level 10+ creatures without a check.
But people ran Restoration back in the day, either as scrolls or just having the ability to prepare it or cast it from repertoire. And 2nd rank cleanse affliction is just a better version of the affliction removal that can be cast in combat, Its situational for sure. but it still has saved both my own and players at my table at 2nd rank. Typically from poisons that eat up a players turn either by confusion or stupified. Things that incurr a Treat Poison reaction to begin with. Or with longer lasting diseases which essentially shut down any hope of adventuring.
Its the #1 spell I miss when I play arcane, Both because afflictions are penalizing and I know that a single failure at stage one either means atleast two more days with a penalty or more opportunities for multiple exposures to increase the stage for poisons as its likely staying for the rest of combat.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
